• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Steel wins tax breaks from one of America's poorest cities

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,713
Reaction score
14,069
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From Reuters

U.S. Steel wins tax breaks from one of America's poorest cities

GARY, Indiana (Reuters) - United States Steel Corporation founded Gary, Indiana in 1906 - naming it after co-founder Elbert Henry Gary - and the city’s fortunes have been closely tied to the company ever since.

When the firm started losing business to cheap Asian imports in the 1970s, waves of layoffs followed as Gary became a haven of blight, crime and lost population.

Last year, the city harbored hopes for a revival after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on steel imports and the company planned a $750 million investment to modernize Gary Works, its largest North American plant.

But it’s now clear those hopes will not translate into new steel jobs, even after the city and state offered the firm a $47 million tax break package.

COMMENT:-

Somehow I can't quite get my mind wrapped around "Slowing Of Job Loss = Job Creation".

Admittedly the tax breaks did result in an increase in average income (at least the incomes of the owners went up and an increase to a part of a population will result in an increase in the population's average).
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
32,172
Reaction score
31,252
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Seems like trying to cling to the past with a questionable business model (especially if the OP article is accurate in terms of efficiency comparison to similar companies in the same space.)
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the article:
t’s now clear those hopes [based on Trump's steel tariffs and US Steel's $750 million investment to modernize Gary Works, its largest North American plant] will not translate into new steel jobs, even after the city and state offered the firm a $47 million tax break package.

The whole point of the investment is to make the plant more efficient, so the incentives will help finance a project that city and company officials concede could ultimately result in job losses, not gains.


Yet another opportunity to of Trump's policies -- things that "Trump Country" people say they like -- to use the age old adage: "We told you so."
It's one thing to have one's political preferences and whatnot, but when professionals apply their specific and technical subject matter knowledge and experience developed initially with formal training and enhanced with years and years of professional applications of their skills and abilities, and, in turn, share it for the public's benefit, that's not politics. Trump and his supporters believe and would have others believe that their lack of knowledge and experience observing and analyzing "this or that" genre of phenomena is somehow more valid that are those professionals' deep knowledge and understanding of the same events and trends is just ridiculous. Furthermore, such disregard detriments not only the individuals who hew to their politically popular notions rather than to expert analysis, but also the country in general.

Those people (1) can't or won't perform their own rigorous analysis and (2) reject that presented to them by entities/people who can and do. One cannot help folks who thus exhibit willful ignorance and neither can they or will they sagaciously help themselves. What is there to do with people like that? Nothing but "cut bait" and let them suffer the consequences of their intransigence.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,713
Reaction score
14,069
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the article:
t’s now clear those hopes [based on Trump's steel tariffs and US Steel's $750 million investment to modernize Gary Works, its largest North American plant] will not translate into new steel jobs, even after the city and state offered the firm a $47 million tax break package.

The whole point of the investment is to make the plant more efficient, so the incentives will help finance a project that city and company officials concede could ultimately result in job losses, not gains.


Yet another opportunity to of Trump's policies -- things that "Trump Country" people say they like -- to use the age old adage: "We told you so."
It's one thing to have one's political preferences and whatnot, but when professionals apply their specific and technical subject matter knowledge and experience developed initially with formal training and enhanced with years and years of professional applications of their skills and abilities, and, in turn, share it for the public's benefit, that's not politics. Trump and his supporters believe and would have others believe that their lack of knowledge and experience observing and analyzing "this or that" genre of phenomena is somehow more valid that are those professionals' deep knowledge and understanding of the same events and trends is just ridiculous. Furthermore, such disregard detriments not only the individuals who hew to their politically popular notions rather than to expert analysis, but also the country in general.

Those people (1) can't or won't perform their own rigorous analysis and (2) reject that presented to them by entities/people who can and do. One cannot help folks who thus exhibit willful ignorance and neither can they or will they sagaciously help themselves. What is there to do with people like that? Nothing but "cut bait" and let them suffer the consequences of their intransigence.


You do, however, have to admit that Mr. Trump's tax changes have enabled large corporations to "buy back" significant amounts of their outstanding stock.

This, of course, reduces the number of shares that receive dividend pay outs.

That, of course, means that the same size pie gets cut into fewer pieces.

Naturally that means that the pieces into which the same sized pie gets divided are larger than when the pie was cut into more pieces.

And, of course, those who receive the (now) larger dividends are taxpayers.

So that means that taxpayers have benefited from Mr. Trump's tax changes.

Q.E.D.

Right?
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the article:
t’s now clear those hopes [based on Trump's steel tariffs and US Steel's $750 million investment to modernize Gary Works, its largest North American plant] will not translate into new steel jobs, even after the city and state offered the firm a $47 million tax break package.

The whole point of the investment is to make the plant more efficient, so the incentives will help finance a project that city and company officials concede could ultimately result in job losses, not gains.


Yet another opportunity to of Trump's policies -- things that "Trump Country" people say they like -- to use the age old adage: "We told you so."
It's one thing to have one's political preferences and whatnot, but when professionals apply their specific and technical subject matter knowledge and experience developed initially with formal training and enhanced with years and years of professional applications of their skills and abilities, and, in turn, share it for the public's benefit, that's not politics. Trump and his supporters believe and would have others believe that their lack of knowledge and experience observing and analyzing "this or that" genre of phenomena is somehow more valid that are those professionals' deep knowledge and understanding of the same events and trends is just ridiculous. Furthermore, such disregard detriments not only the individuals who hew to their politically popular notions rather than to expert analysis, but also the country in general.

Those people (1) can't or won't perform their own rigorous analysis and (2) reject that presented to them by entities/people who can and do. One cannot help folks who thus exhibit willful ignorance and neither can they or will they sagaciously help themselves. What is there to do with people like that? Nothing but "cut bait" and let them suffer the consequences of their intransigence.
You do, however, have to admit that Mr. Trump's tax changes have enabled large corporations to "buy back" significant amounts of their outstanding stock.

This, of course, reduces the number of shares that receive dividend pay outs.

That, of course, means that the same size pie gets cut into fewer pieces.

Naturally that means that the pieces into which the same sized pie gets divided are larger than when the pie was cut into more pieces.

And, of course, those who receive the (now) larger dividends are taxpayers.

So that means that taxpayers have benefited from Mr. Trump's tax changes.

Q.E.D.

Right?


Whether the recipients of the "larger piece of the pie," as it were, are/aren't taxpayers has what to do with anything I wrote? Nothing having greater merit than a line that "grasps at straws."

It's nice that you can demonstrate something that's ingermane to my remarks, but that you can -- and you have indeed shown that it's likely the recipients are taxpayers, though, inasmuch as you want to pursue a obtusely non-sequitur line, not necessarily US taxpayers; moreover, you've not demonstrated that most or a material plurality of the firms that bought back stocks have subsequently paid dividends -- alters not the validity and relevance of my comments.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,713
Reaction score
14,069
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Whether the recipients of the "larger piece of the pie," as it were, are/aren't taxpayers has what to do with anything I wrote? Nothing having greater merit than a line that "grasps at straws."

It's nice that you can demonstrate something that's ingermane to my remarks, but that you can -- and you have indeed shown that it's likely the recipients are taxpayers, though, inasmuch as you want to pursue a obtusely non-sequitur line, not necessarily US taxpayers; moreover, you've not demonstrated that most or a material plurality of the firms that bought back stocks have subsequently paid dividends -- alters not the validity and relevance of my comments.

I didn't dispute a thing that you said, I only pointed out something that you hadn't said.

PS - I do hope that you realize that what I posted was the latest version of the officially approved, "Team Trump" certified, currently operative, "Truth of the Day" and not something that I would expect anyone with more operative intelligence than three day old road kill has to actually believe.

PPS - Mr. Trump does NOT "smoke" but I refrain from making any comment on his emotional attachment to mirrors.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I didn't dispute a thing that you said, I only pointed out something that you hadn't said.

PS - I do hope that you realize that what I posted was the latest version of the officially approved, "Team Trump" certified, currently operative, "Truth of the Day" and not something that I would expect anyone with more operative intelligence than three day old road kill has to actually believe.

PPS - Mr. Trump does NOT "smoke" but I refrain from making any comment on his emotional attachment to mirrors.

Red:
Okay.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Off-Topic:
I didn't dispute a thing that you said, I only pointed out something that you hadn't said.

PS - I do hope that you realize that what I posted was the latest version of the officially approved, "Team Trump" certified, currently operative, "Truth of the Day" and not something that I would expect anyone with more operative intelligence than three day old road kill has to actually believe.

PPS - Mr. Trump does NOT "smoke" but I refrain from making any comment on his emotional attachment to mirrors.

Red and off-topic:
I don't know why folks quote one's remarks and don't, when the person doing the quoting has nothing to say that relate directly to the content they've quoted, somehow indicate they have no desire for readers to construe that the subsequent comments have nothing to do with subject/theme the remarks that were quoted. Is it really too much to directly state that one's comments have that nature? They're myriad ways to do so:


  • [*=1]Simply preceding one's comments with "off-topic."
    [*=1]Including an introductory clause to the effect of "My comments that follow have no relation to your comments, but your comments inspired them..."
It's not at all unusual for one's comments to inspire off-topic thoughts, but it is unusual for the person expressing the off-topic thought to refrain from "warning" readers not to construe his/her remarks as topical germane to the comments that inspired the off-topic. Not giving readers some sort of "warning" to that effect is tantamount to a written analogue of Tourette's Syndrome.​
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,713
Reaction score
14,069
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Off-Topic:


Red and off-topic:
I don't know why folks quote one's remarks and don't, when the person doing the quoting has nothing to say that relate directly to the content they've quoted, somehow indicate they have no desire for readers to construe that the subsequent comments have nothing to do with subject/theme the remarks that were quoted. Is it really too much to directly state that one's comments have that nature? They're myriad ways to do so:


  • [*=1]Simply preceding one's comments with "off-topic."
    [*=1]Including an introductory clause to the effect of "My comments that follow have no relation to your comments, but your comments inspired them..."
It's not at all unusual for one's comments to inspire off-topic thoughts, but it is unusual for the person expressing the off-topic thought to refrain from "warning" readers not to construe his/her remarks as topical germane to the comments that inspired the off-topic. Not giving readers some sort of "warning" to that effect is tantamount to a written analogue of Tourette's Syndrome.​

I like your second suggestion and I'll try to remember to use it when appropriate.

Now, I'm not PROMISING you realize, only saying that I'll try to remember.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I like your second suggestion and I'll try to remember to use it when appropriate.

Now, I'm not PROMISING you realize, only saying that I'll try to remember.

Okay.

BTW, there is another way to express an off-topic idea, and I didn't mention it because I figured it too obvious to merit mentioning: just click "Reply" rather than "Reply With Quote" and refrain from sharing what inspired the thought or attributing it to whatever set of remarks inspired it.

Seeing as we're talking about sharing off-topic/non-sequitur ideas, I'm fairly certain nobody (nobody who's emotionally stable/secure) will take umbrage about not receiving credit for being "inspirational." After all, few are the folks who'll infer that their comments inspired a totally unrelated comment, and, in turn, "demand" credit.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,713
Reaction score
14,069
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Okay.

BTW, there is another way to express an off-topic idea, and I didn't mention it because I figured it too obvious to merit mentioning: just click "Reply" rather than "Reply With Quote" and refrain from sharing what inspired the thought or attributing it to whatever set of remarks inspired it.

Since the responses tend to be posted somewhat after the post that "inspired" them, without adding the bit that "inspired" the reply tends to fall with a thud.

How does "Reply" differ from ""Reply to Thread" (if at all)?

Seeing as we're talking about sharing off-topic/non-sequitur ideas, I'm fairly certain nobody (nobody who's emotionally stable/secure) will take umbrage about not receiving credit for being "inspirational." After all, few are the folks who'll infer that their comments inspired a totally unrelated comment, and, in turn, "demand" credit.[/QUOTE]
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
since the responses tend to be posted somewhat after the post that "inspired" them, without adding the bit that "inspired" the reply tends to fall with a thud.

How does "reply" differ from ""reply to thread" (if at all)?

Red:
Well, one can click on "Reply" and see for oneself. LOL
  • "Reply" --> Clicking "Reply" presents one with a "posting window," but it doesn't quote the post above the "reply" "button" on which one clicks.
  • "Reply With Quote" --> The "posting window" is pre-populated with the non-quote text from post associated with the "Reply With Quote" "button" one clicked.
As you can see, for this post, I clicked "Reply with Quote," which is why your comments are quoted at the outset of this post.
 

pamak

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
12,185
Reaction score
3,967
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
From Reuters

U.S. Steel wins tax breaks from one of America's poorest cities

GARY, Indiana (Reuters) - United States Steel Corporation founded Gary, Indiana in 1906 - naming it after co-founder Elbert Henry Gary - and the city’s fortunes have been closely tied to the company ever since.

When the firm started losing business to cheap Asian imports in the 1970s, waves of layoffs followed as Gary became a haven of blight, crime and lost population.

Last year, the city harbored hopes for a revival after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on steel imports and the company planned a $750 million investment to modernize Gary Works, its largest North American plant.

But it’s now clear those hopes will not translate into new steel jobs, even after the city and state offered the firm a $47 million tax break package.

COMMENT:-

Somehow I can't quite get my mind wrapped around "Slowing Of Job Loss = Job Creation".

Admittedly the tax breaks did result in an increase in average income (at least the incomes of the owners went up and an increase to a part of a population will result in an increase in the population's average).

which shows why the increase in average may be correct mathematically but does not necessarily present meaningful information about a big part of the population. You may earn 2 dollars more while I earn not additional income but this does not mean that I have 1 "average dollar" additionally in my pocket.
Also often an increase in waged reflects the fact that as unemployment falls people earn more because they work more and because we have less part time workers which is sure a good thing but does not reveal any radical change from previous trends. And let's not mention after effects of prior policies. In CA we had laws passed before the 2016 elections about a gradual increase of the minimum wages in many places over a couple of years. Such legislation did bring more dollars to some low-skilled workers in 2018 even though the decision was made a few years ago.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,713
Reaction score
14,069
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
which shows why the increase in average may be correct mathematically but does not necessarily present meaningful information about a big part of the population. You may earn 2 dollars more while I earn not additional income but this does not mean that I have 1 "average dollar" additionally in my pocket.

Quite right. But that isn't what the "talking heads" are going to tell you.

Also often an increase in waged reflects the fact that as unemployment falls people earn more because they work more and because we have less part time workers which is sure a good thing but does not reveal any radical change from previous trends. And let's not mention after effects of prior policies. In CA we had laws passed before the 2016 elections about a gradual increase of the minimum wages in many places over a couple of years. Such legislation did bring more dollars to some low-skilled workers in 2018 even though the decision was made a few years ago.

But, of course, the politicians will tell you that it is only because of what THEY did NOW that that happened.

I did notice "Average tax refund down 8% so far this season" which could mean several things - including, possibly, that the "withholding rates" were too high. However, the fact that that large "lump drop" is actually the result of the combination of a lot of (usually unnoticed) "small increases" is likely to pass unnoticed.

[To digress and illustrate (and I;ll make up the numbers here) if a person had previously received a refund of $1,200 AND had had $100 (per month) "withheld" but now they receive a refund of $600 BUT only have $50 (per month) "withheld" they aren't as likely to notice the $50 (per month) increase as they are to notice the $600 (annual) reduction. - At one time, when I had two separate streams of income, one relatively small compared to the other (and the larger was quite sufficient for daily needs), I had 80% of the smaller income "withheld" (the remaining 20% was quite sufficient for my bar bill) and, at the end of the year, I received a nice sized "lump" payment that was actually of some use to me. That's the flip-side of the current situation where the taxpayer may well be receiving the same after-tax income, but most of it is in a form that doesn't actually have a significant impact on their financial situation.]
 
Top Bottom